



StepVie-n /\TioLigUs of Ullnols 
The ai-mis^JoTi of- K^^^^^S 





Class. 
Book 



SPEECH 



HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 



THE ADMISSIOI OF KANSAS 



THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION- 



<HilAYE?xEl) IN THE SENATE OF 'fflE UNITED STATES, MARCH 22, 1858. 



WASHINGTON; 
I 8 .5 8 . 



SPEECH. 



The Senate liaviii^ uiuler consideration the bill for the admission ot' Kansas as a Stata 
•into the Union — 

Mr. DOUGLAS said : 

Mr. President: I know not that my strength is sufficient to en- 
able me to present to-night tlie views which I should like to submit 
upon the question now under consideration. My sickness for the last 
two weeks has deprived me of the pleasure of listening to the debates, 
and of an opportunity of reading the speeches that have been made ; 
hence I shall not be able to perform the duty which might naturally 
have been expected of me, of replying to any criticisms that may have 
been presented upon my course, or upon my speeches, or upon my re- 
port. I must content myself with presenting my views upon the 
questions that are naturally brought up by the bill under considera- 
tion. I trust, however, that I may be pardoned for referring briefly, 
in the first instance, to my course upon the slavery question during 
the period that I have had a seat in the two Houses of Congress. 

When I entered Congress, in 1843, I found upon the statute-book 
the evidence of a policy to adjust the slavery question and avoid sec- 
tional agitation by a geographical line drawn across the continent, 
separating free territory from slave territory. That policy had its 
origin at the beginning of this government, and had prevailed up to 
that time. In 178*7, while the convention was in session, forming the 
Constitution of the United States, the Congress of the Confederation 
adopted the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in all the territory 
northwest of tlie Ohio river. The first Congress that assembled under 
the Constitution extended all the provisions of that ordinance, with 
the exception of the clause prohibiting slavery, to the territory south 
of that river, thus making the Ohio river the dividing line between 
free territory and slave territory, free labor and slavfe labor. 

Subsequently, after the acquisition of Louisiana, when Missouri, a 
portion of that territory, applied for admission into the Union as a 
^tate, the same policy was carried out by adopting the parallel of 36*^ 
3(y north latitude, from the western border of Missouri, as far west- 
ward as our territory then extended, as the barrier between free ter- 
ritory upon the one side, and slave territory upon tlie other. 

Thus the question stood when I first entered the Congress of the 
United States. I examined the question when the proposition was 
made for the annexation of Texas, in 1845 ; and though I was unable 
to vindicate the policy of a geographical line upon sound political 
principles, still, finding that it had been in existence from the l)egin- 
ning of the government, had been acquiesced in uj) to that time by 



4 

the North and by the South, and that it had its origin in patriotic 
motives, I was anxious to abide by and perpetuate that policy rather 
than open the slavery af:;itation, and create sectional strife and heart- 
burning by attempting to restore the government to those great prin- 
ciples which seemed to me to be more consistent with the right of 
self-government, upon which our institutions rest. For this reason I 
cordially acquiesced, in 1845, in the insertion into the resolutions for 
the annexation of Texas, of a clause extending the Missouri compro- 
mise line through the Republic of Texas so far westward as the new 
acquisition might reach, I not only acquiesced in and supported the 
measure then, but I did it witli the avowed purpose of continuing that 
line to the Pacific ocean, so soon as we should acquire the territory. 
Accordingly, in 1848, when we had acquired New Mexico, Utah, and 
California, from the Republic of Mexico, and the question arose in 
this body in regard to the kind of government which should be estab- 
lished therein, the Senate, on my motion, adopted a proposition to 
extend the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific ocean, with the 
same understanding Avith which it was originally adopted. The 
Journal of the Senate contains the following entry of that proposition : 

"On motion of Mr. Dottglas to amend the bill, section foiirtecn, line one, by inserting 
after tbe word 'enacted:' 'That the line of 36'^ 30^ of north latitude, known as the 
Missouri coniproniise line, as defined bj- the eighth section of an act entitled "An act to 
authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State govern- 
ment, and for tlie admission of said State into tlie Union on an eipiality with the original 
States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6, 1820, be, and 
the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific ocean, and the said eighth section, 
together with the compromise therein etlected, is hereby revived, and declared to be iu 
full force and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United Stiites, 
in the same sense and with the same understanding with wliich it was originally adopted.' 

"It was determined in the afiirmative — yeas 32, nays 21. 

"On motion of Mr. Baldwin, the yeas and nays being desired by one- fifth of tbs 
senators present, 

"Those who voted in tlie al'firmatJA'e are — 

"Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Briglit, Butler, Calhoun, 
Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, 
Houston, Hunter, Johnson of JIaryland, .Johnson of Louisiana, .Tohnson of Georgia, 
King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, IMetcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney. 
and Underwood. 

"Those who voted in the negative are — 

"Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Massa- 
chusetts, I'ayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, 
Upham, Walker, and Webster. 

" So the proposed amendment was agreed to." 

Thus it will be seen that the proposition offered by mc to extend the 
Missouri compromise line to the Pacific ocean in the same sense and with 
thesameunderstanding with which it was originally adopted, was agreed 
to by the Senate by a majority of twelve. When the bill was sent to 
the House of Representatives, that provision was stricken out, I tliink, 
by thirty-nine majority. By that vote the policy of separating free 
territory from slave territory, by a geographical line, was abandoned 
by the Congress of the United States. It is not my purpose on this 
occasion to inquire whether the policy was right or wrong ; whether 
its abandonment at that time was wise or unwise ; that is a question 
long since consigned to history, and I leave it to that tribunal to de- 
termine. I only refer to it now for the purpose of showing the view 
which I then took of the question. It will be seen, by reference to 



the votes in the Senate and House of Eepreeentatives, that soutliern 
men in a body voted for the extension of the Missouri compromise 
line, and a very large majority of the northern men voted against it. 
The argument then made against thepolicy of a geographical line was 
one which upon principle it was difficult to answer. It was urged that 
if slavery was wrong north of the line, it could not be right south of 
the line ; that if it was unwise, impolitic, and injurious on the one side, it 
could not be wise^ politic, and judicious u[)on the other ; that if the 
people should be left to decide the question for themselves on the one 
side, they should be entitled to the same privilege on the other. I 
thought these arguments were difficult to answer upon principle. The 
only answer urged was, that the policy had its origin in patriotic mo- 
tives, in fraternal feeling, in that brotherly affection which ought to 
animate all the citizens of a common country ; and that, for the sake 
of peace and harmony and concord, we ought to adhere to and pre- 
serve that policy. Under these considerations, I not only voted for it, 
but moved it, and lamented as much as any man in the coun- 
try its failure ; because that failure precipitated us into a sectional 
strife and agitation, the like of which had never before been witnessed 
in the United States, and which alarmed the wisest, the purest, and 
the best patriots in the land for the safety of the Republic. 

You all recollect the agitation which raged through this land from 
1848 to 1850, and which was only quieted by the compromise meas- 
ures of the latter year. You all remember how the venerable sage and 
patriot of Ashland was called forth from his retirement for the sole 
purpose of being able to contribute, by his v/isdom, by his patriotism, 
by his experience, by the weight of his authority, something to calm 
the troubled waters, and restore peace and harmony to a disti-acted 
country. That contest waged fiercely, almost savagely, threatening 
the peace and existence of the Union, until at last, by the wise coun- 
sels of a Clay, a Webster, and a Cass, and the other leading spirits of 
the country, a new plan of conciliation and settlement was agreed 
upon, which again restored peace to the Union. The policy of a geo- 
graphical line separating free territory from slave territory was aban- 
boned by its friends only because they found themselves without the 
power to adhere to it, and carry it into effect in good faith. If that 
policy had been continued, if the Missouri line liad been extended to 
the Pacific ocean^, there would have been an end to the slavery agita- 
tion forever — for on one side as far west as the continent extended slavery 
would have been prohibited, while on the other, by legal implication, 
it would have been taken for granted that the institution of slavery 
would have existed and continued, and emigration would have sought 
the one side of the line or the other, as it preferred the one or the 
other class of domestic and social institutions. I confess, sir, that it 
was my opinion then, and is my opinion now, that the extension of 
that line would have been favorable to the South, so far as any sec- 
tional advantage would have been obtained, if it be an advantage to any 
section to extend its peculiai institutions. Southern men seemed so to 
consider it, for they voted almost unanimously in favor of that policy 
of prohibiting slavery on one side, contented with a silent implication 
in its favor on the other. Northern representatives and senators 



6 

{<ecmctl to take the same view of the subject, for a large majority of 
them voted against tliis geographical policy, and iu lieu of it insisted 
upon a law prohibiting slavery everywhere within the Territories of 
the United States, north as well as soutli of the line ; and not only in 
tlie Territories, but in the dock yards, the navy yards, and all otlier 
public jdaccs over whicli the Congress of the United States had exclu- 
sive jurisdiction. 

Such, sir, was the state of public opinion, as evidenced by the acts 
of representatives and senators on the question of a geographical line 
by tlie extension of the Missouri comi)romise, as it is called, from 1848 
to 1850, which caused it to be abandoned, and the compromise mea- 
sures of 1850 to be substituted in its place. Tliose measures are 
familiar to the Senate and to the country. They are predicated u})on 
tlie abandonment of a geographical line, and upon the great ])rinciple 
of sell-government in the Territories, and the sovereignty of the States 
over tlie question of slavery, as well as of over all otlier matters of 
local and domestic concern. Inasmuch as the time-honored and vene- 
rated policy of a geographical line had been abandoned, the great 
leaders of the Senate, and the great Commoners in the other House of 
Congress, saw no other remedy but to return to the true princi})les of 
the Constitution — to those great principles of self-government and 
popular sovereignty U])on which all free institutions rest — and to 
leave the people of the Territories and of the States free to decide the 
slavery question, as well as all other questions, lor themselves. 

Mr. President, I am one of those who concurred cheerfully and 
heartily in this new line of policy marked out by the compromise 
measures of 1850. Having been compelled to abandon the former 
policy of a geographical line, for want of ability to carry it out, I 
joined with the great patriots to wliom I have alluded, to calm and 
quiet the countiy by the adoption of a policy more congenial to my 
views of free institutions, not only for the ])urpose of healing and 
harmonizing the strife and controversy which then existed, but for 
the further purpose of providing a rule of action in all time to come 
which would avoid sectional strife and sectional controversy in the 
future. It was one of the great merits of the compromise measures 
of 1850 — indeed, it was their chief merit — that they furnished a prin- 
ciple, a rule of action which should ap])ly everywhere, north and 
south of 30° 30', not only to the territory which wx' then had, but to 
all that we might afterwards acquire, and thus, if that principle was 
adhered to, prevent any strife, any controversy, any sectional agita- 
tion in the future. The object was to localize, not to nationalize, the 
controversy in regard to slavery, to make it a question for each State 
and each Territory to decide for itself, without any other State, or 
any other Territory, or the federal government, or any outside power, 
interfering, directly or indirectly, to influence or control the result. 

My course upon those measures created, at first, great excitement, 
and I may say great indignation, at my own home, so that it became 
necessary for me to go before the people and vindicate my action. I 
made a speech at Chicago upon my return home, iu which I stated 
the jn'inciples of the compromise measures of 1850 as I liave now 
stated them here, and vindicated them to the best of my ability. It 



I 



is enongh to say that, upon sober reflection, the people of Illinois ap- 
proved the course which I then pursued ; and when the legislature 
came together, they passed, with great unanimity, resolutions endors- 
ing emphatically the principle of those measures. 

In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of 
Kansas and Nebraska, the question arose, what principle was to apply 
to those Territories ? It was true they both lay north of the line of 
36° 30' ; but it was also true that, four years before, the policy of a 
geographical line had been abandoned and repudiated by the Con- 
gress of the United States, and in lieu of it the plan of leaving each 
Territory free to decide the question for itself had been adopted. I 
felt it to be my duty, as a senator from the State of Illinois, and I 
will say as a member of the democratic party, to adhere in good 
faith to the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, and to 
apply them to Kansas and Nebraska, as well as to the other Terri- 
tories. To show that I was bound to })ursue this course, it is only 
necessary to refer to the public incidents of those times. In the 
presidential election of 1852, the great political parties of that day 
each nominated its candidate for the presidency upon a platform 
which endorsed the compromise measures of 1850, and both pledged 
themselves to carry them out in good faith in all future times in the 
organization of all new Territories. The whig party adopted that 
platform at Baltimore, and placed General Scott, their candidatej 
upon it. The democratic party adopted a platform identical in prin- 
ciple,, so far as this question was concerned, and elected General 
Pierce President of the United States upon it. Thus the whig party 
and the democratic party each stood pledged to apply this principle 
in the organization of all new Territories. Not only was I as a dem- 
ocrat — as a senator who voted for their adoption — bound to apply 
their principle to this case ; but, as a senator from Illinois, I was 
under an imperative obligation, if I desired to obey the will and carry 
out the wishes of my constituents, to apply the same principle. To 
show the views of my legislature upon that subject, I will read one 
resolution, which was passed at the session of 1851 : 

" liesolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the rigiit of tlie people to 
form for tliernselves such a jrovprnmont as they may choose ; that this great privilege, the 
birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, secured to us by the blood of our ancestors, ought 
to be extended to future generations ; and that no limitation ought to be ap[>lied to this 
power in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either a territorial gov- 
ernment or a State constitution : Prnvidtd, The government so established shall be repub- 
lican, and in conformity with the Constitution." 

That resolution was adopted by a vote of sixty-one in the affirma- 
tive and only four in the negative. I undertake to say that resolu- 
tion-spoke the sentiments of the people of Illinois; and I, as their 
senator, was only carrying out their sentiments and wishes by apply- 
ing this principle to the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This 
principle was appled in that bill in the jirecise language of the com- 
promise measures of 1850, except the addition of a clause removing 
from the statute-book the eighth section of the Missouri act, as being 
inconsistent with that principle, and declaring that it was the true 
intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any Ter- 
ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 



thereof perfectly free to iorm and regulate their domestic institutions 
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States. 

Now, sir, the (juestion arises whetlier tlie Lecompton constitution, 
which has been presented here for our acceptance, is in accordance 
with this principle embodied in the compromise measures, and clearly 
defined in the organic act of Kansas. Have the people of Kansas 
been left [)erfectly free to form and regulate tlieir domestic institu- 
tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution? Is the 
Lecompton constitution the act and deed of the people of Kansas ? 
Does it embody their will? If not, you have no constitutional right 
to impose it upon them. If it does embody their will, if it is 
their act and deed, you have, then, aright to waive any irregularities 
that may have occurred, and receive the State into the Union. This 
is the main point, in my estimation, upon which the vote of the 
Senate and of the House of Representatives ought to depend in the 
decision of the Kansas question. Now, is there a man within the 
hearing of my voice who believes that the Lecom{)ton constitution 
does embody the will of a majority of the bo7ia fide inhabitants of 
Kansas ? Where is the evidence that it does embody that will ? 

We are told that it was made by a convention assembled at Lecomp- 
ton in September last, and has been submitted to the people tor rati- 
fication or rejection. How sulunitted? In a manner that allowed 
every man to vote for it, but precluded the possibility of any man voting 
against it. We are told that there is a majority of about five thousand 
five hundred votes recorded in its favor under these circumstances. I 
refrain from going into the evidence which has been taken before the 
commission recently held in Kansas to show what proportion of these 
votes were fraudulent ; but, supposing them all to have been legal, 
bona fide residents, what does that fact prove^ when tlie people on that 
occasion were allowed only to vote for, and could not vote against, 
the constitution? On the other hand, we have a vote of the people in 
pursuance of law, on the 4th of January last, when this constitution 
was submitted by tlie legislature to llie people for acceptance or rejec- 
tion, sliowing a majority of more than ten thousand against it. If 
you grant that both these elections were valid, if you grant that the 
votes were legal and fair, yet the majority is about two to one against 
this constitution. Here is evidence to my mind conclusive that this 
Lecompton constitution is not the embodiment of the popular will of 
Kansas. How is this evidence to be rebutted? By the assum})tion 
that the election on the 21st of December, whore the voters were 
allowed to vote for it, but not against it, was a legal election ; and that 
the election on the 4th of January, where the people were allowed to 
vote for or against the constitution as they chose, was not a legal and 
valid election. 

Sir, where do you find your evidence of the legality of the election 
of the 21st of December? Under what law was that election held? 
Under no law, except the decree of tlie Lecompton convention. Did 
that convention })ossess legislative power ? Did it possess any author- 
ity to prescribe an election law? That convention possessed only 
such power as it derived from the territorial legislature in the act 
authorizing the assembling of the convention ; and I submit that the 



9 

same authority, the same power, existed in the territorial legislature 
to order an election on the 4th of January as existed in the conven- 
tion to order one on the 21st of December. The legislature had the 
same power over the whole subject on the 17th of December, when it 
passed a law for the submission of the constitution to the people, that 
it had on the 19th of February, when it enacted the statute for the 
assembling of the convention. 

The convention assembled under the authority of the territorial 
legislature alone, and hence was bound to conduct all its proceedings 
in conformity with, and in subordination to, the authority of the 
legislature. The moment the convention attempted to put its consti- 
tution into operation against the authority of the territorial legisla- 
ture, it committed an act of rebellion against the government of the 
United States. But we are told by the President that at the time the 
territorial legislature passed the law submitting the whole constitution 
to the people, the Territory had been prepared for admission into the 
Union as a State. How prepared? By what authority prepared? 
Not by the authority of any act of Congress — by no other autliority 
than that of the territorial legislature; and clearly a conveii'.on 
assembled under that authority could do no act to subvert the t'-i r to- 
rial legislature which brought the convention into existence. 

But gentlemen assume that the organic act of the Territory was an 
enabling act ; that it delegated to the legislature all the povvcr that 
Congress had to authorize the assembling of a convention. Although 
I dissent from this doctrine, I am willing, for the sake of the argu- 
ment, to assume it to be correct ; and il' it be correct, to wliat conclu- 
sion does it lead us ? It only substitutes the territorial legislature 
for the autliority of Congress, and gives validity to the convention ; 
and therefore the legislature would have just the same right that 
Congress otherwise would have had, and no more, and no less. Sup- 
pose now that Congress had passed an enabling act, and a convention 
had been called^ and a constitution framed under it ; but three days 
before that constitution was to take effect. Congress should pass 
another act repealing the convention law, and submitting the consti- 
tution to the vote of the people : would it be denied that the act of 
Congress submitting the constitution would be a valid act? If Con- 
gress would have authority thus to interpose, and submit the consti- 
tution to the vote of the people, it clearly follows that if the legislature 
stood in the place of Congress, and was vested with the power which 
Congress had on the subject, it had the same riglit to inter[K)8e, and 
submit this constitution to the people for ratification or rejection. 

Therefore, sir, if you judge this constitution by the technical rules 
of law, it was voted down by an overwhelming majority of the people 
of Kansas, and it became null and void ; and you are called upon 
now to give vitality to a void, rejected, repudiated constitution. If, 
however, you set aside the technicalities of law, and approach it in 
the spirit of statesmanship, in the spirit of justice and of lairness, 
with an eye single to ascertain what is the wish and the will of that 
people, you are forced to the conclusion that the Lecompton constitu- 
tion does not embody that will. 

Sir, we have heard the argument over and over again, that the 
Lecompton convention were justified in withholding this constitution 



10 

IVoDi submission to the people, for the reason that it would have been 
voted down if it had been submitted to the people for ratification or 
rejection. We are told that tliere was a large majority of iree State 
men in the Territory, who would have voted down tlie constitution if 
they had got a clumce, and that is the excuse for not allowing the 
people to vote uj)on it. That is an admission that this constitution is 
not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it does not embody 
their will ; and yet you are called upon to give it force and vitality ; 
to make it tlie fundamental law of Kansas with a knowledge that it 
is not the will of tlie peo])le, and misrepresents tlieir wishes. 1 ask 
you, sir, where is your right, under our princi})les of government, to 
force a constitution upon an unwilling people ? You may resort to all 
the evidence that you can obtain, from every source that you please, 
and you are driven to the same conclusion. (The confusion created 
by the large number of persons in the galleries endeavoring to find 
places where they could see and hear, and others pressing in, was so 
great that the honorable senator could hardly make himself heard.) 

Mr. Stuart. I am aware of the very great difficully of })reserving 
order ; but still I think that, by a suggestion from the Chair, gentle- 
men in the galleries and about the lobbies would do it. They can do 
it if they will. The honorable senator from Illinois speaks with dif- 
.fireulty_, at any rate, and 1 hope there will be sufiicient order preserved 
vthat he may be heard. 

The Vice President. The Chair has observed a good deal of dis- 
order about the central door of the main gallery. It is quite obvious 
•that there are as many persons there as can stand now, and therefore 
it would be well for gentlemen not to press in. They are respectfully 
requested to preserve order and decorum. 

Mr. DouciLAS, If further evidence was necessary to show that the 
Lecomi)ton constitution is not the will of the people of Kansas, you 
find it in the action of the legislature of that Territory. On the first 
Monday in October an election took place for members of the territo- 
rial legislature. It was a severe struggle between the two great 
l)arties in the Territory. On a fair test, and at tlie fairest election, as 
as conceded on all hands, ever held in the Territory, a legislature 
wa^ elected. That legislature came together and remonstrated, by an 
overwhelming majority, against this constitution, as not being the act 
and deed of that people, and not embodying their will. Ask the late 
governor of the Territory, and he will tell you that it is a mockery to 
Sill this the act and deed of the people. Ask the secretary of the 
Territory, ex-governor Stanton, and he will tell you the same thing. 
i will hazard the i)rediction, that if you ask governor Denver to-day, 
lie will tell you, if he answers at all, that it is a mockery, nay, a 
crime, to attempt to enforce this constitution as an embodiment of the 
will of that people. Ask, then, your official agents in the Territory ; 
ask the legislature elected by the people at the last election ; con- 
sult the poll-books on a fair election held in pursuance of law; 
consult private citizens from there ; consult whatever sources of in- 
formation you please, and you get the same answer — that this con- 
stitution does not embody the public will, is not the act and deed of 
the people, does not represent their wishes ; and hence I deny your 



11 

right, your authority, to make it their organic law. If the Lecomp- 
ton constitution ever becomes the organic hiw of the State of Kansas, 
it will be the act of Congress that makes it so, and not the act or will 
of the people of Kansas. 

But we are told that it is a matter of but small moment whether 
the constitution embodies the public will or not, because it can be mod- 
itied and changed by the people of Kansas at any time as soon as 
they are admitted into the Union. Sir, it matters not whether it can 
be changed or cannot be changed, so far as the principle involved is 
concerned. It matters not whether this constitution is to be the per- 
manent fundamental law of Kansas, or is to last only a day, or a 
month, or a year ; because, if it is not their act and deed you have no 
right to ibrce it upon them for a single day. If you have the power 
to force it upon this people for one day, you may do it for a year, for 
ten years, "or permanently. The principle involved is the same. It 
is as much a violation of fundamental principle, a violation of popular 
sovereignty, a violation of the Constitution of the United States, to 
force a State constitution on an unwilling people for a day, as it is for 
a year or for a longer time. When you set the example of violating 
the fundamental principles of free government, even for a short period, 
you have made a precedent that will enable unscrupulous men in fu- 
ture times, under high partisan excitement, to subvert all the othe?: 
great principles upon which our institutions rest. 

But, sir^ is it true that tliis constitution may be changed imme- 
diately by the people of Kansas ? The President of the United States 
tells us tliat the people can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure ; 
that the people have no right to tie their own hands and prohibit a 
<3hange of the constitution until 1864, or any other period ; that the' 
right of change always exists, and that the change may be made by 
the people at any time in their own way, at pleasure, by the consent 
of the legislature. I do not agree that the people cannot tie their 
own hands. I hold that a constitution is a social compact between all 
the people of the State tlmt adopts it ; between each man in the State, 
and every other man ; binding upon them all ; and they have a right 
to say it shall only be changed at a particular time and in a particular- 
manner, and then only after such and such periods of deliberation „ 
l^ot only have they a right to do this, but it is wise that the funda- 
mental law should have some stability, some permanency, and not be 
liable to fluctuation and change by every ebullition of passion. 

This constitution provides that, after the year 1864 it may be 
changed by the legislature by a two-thirds vote of each house, sub- 
mitting to the people the question whether they will hold a convention 
for the purpose of amending the constitution, I hold tliat, when a 
constitution provides one time of change, by every rule of interpreta- 
tion it excludes all other times ; and when it prescribes one mode of 
change, it excludes all other modes. I hold that it is the fair intend- 
ment and interpretation of this constitution that it is not to be changed 
until after the year 1684, and then only in the manner prescribed in 
the instrument. If it were true that this constitution was tlie act and 
deed of the people of Kansas — if it were true tliat it embodied their 
will — I hold that such a provision against change for a sulhcicnt 



12 

length of time to enable the people to test its practical workings would 
he a wise provision, and not liable to objection. That })eople are not 
capable of self-government who cannot make a constitution under 
which they are willing to live for a period of six years without cliange. 
I do not object that this constitution cannot be changed until after 
1864, provided you show me that it be the act and deed of thepeoj)le, 
and embodies their will now. If it be not their act and deed, you 
have no right to fix it upon tliem for a day — not for an liour — not for 
an instant ; for it is a violation of the great principle of free govern- 
ment to force it upon them. 

The President of the United States tells us that he sees no objection 
to inserting a clause in the act of admission declaratory of the right 
of the people of Kansas, witli the consent of the first legislature, to 
change this constitution, notwithstanding the provision which it con- 
tain.s, that it shall not be changed until after the year 1864. Where 
does Congress get power to intervene and change a provision in the 
constitution of a State ? If this constitution declares, as 1 insist it 
does, that it shall not be changed until alter 1864, what right has 
Congress to intervene, to alter, or annul that provision prohibiting 
alteration? If you can annul one provision, you may another, and 
another, and another, until you have destroyed the entire instrument. 
I deny your right to annul ; I deny your right to change, or even to 
construe the meaning of a single clause of this constitution. If it be the 
act and deed oi' the people of Kansas, and becomes their fundamen- 
tal law, it is sacred ; you have no right to touch it, no right to con- 
stiue it, no right to determine its meaning ; it is theirs, not yours. 
You must take it as it is, or reject it as a whole ; but put not your 
sacriligious hands upon the instrument if it be their act and deed. 
Whenever this government undertakes to construe State constitutions 
and to recognize the right of the people of a State to act in a difierent 
manner from that provided in their constitution ; whenever it under- 
takes to give a meaning to a clause of a State constitution, which that 
State has not given ; wlienever the government undertakes to do that, 
and its right is acknowledged, farewell to State rights, farewell to 
State sovereignty ; your States become mere provinces, dependencies, 
with no more independence and no more rights than the counties of 
the different States. This doctrine, that Congress may intervene, 
and annul, construe, or change a clause in a State constitution, sub- 
verts the fundamental })rinciples u[)on which our complex system of 
government rests. 

Upon this point, the Committee on Territories, in the majority re- 
port, find themselves constrained to dissent from the doctrine of the 
President. They see no necessity, and, if I understand the report, no 
legal authority on the part of Congress to intervene and construe this 
or any other provision of the constitution ; but the distinguished gen- 
tleman who makes the report from the Committee on Territories has, 
in his own estin;ation, obviated all objection by finding a clause in the 
constitution of Kansas, which he thinks remedies the whole evil. It 
is in the bill of rights, and is in these words : 

" All political power La iuliereut in the people, and all free ^oveiniuents are founded on 
their authority, and instituted for their benefit : and, therefore, they have at all times an in- 



13 

alienable and ndefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such 
a manner as they may think proper." 

The Vice President. The senator from Illinois will pause for a 
moment. The Sergeant-at-arms will go uj) and close tlie centre door 
of the ladies' gallery ; shut it, and keep it shut, so as to admit no 
more persons there. 

Mr. Douglas. There a])pears to be some difficulty at the southern 
door of the eastern gallery _, and I hope the Chair will direct that to 
be closed. 

The Vice President. The Chair has sent an officer to that door to 
close it, and preserve quiet there. The senator from Illinois will 
proceed. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator from Missouri, who makes the report of 
the majority of the committee, is under the impression that this clause 
in the bill of rights overrides and changes the provision in the Le- 
compton constitution, which declares that there shall be no change 
until alter 18G4, and then only by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. 
How does he make that override the prohibition ? By taking the 
clause in the bill of rights, which is intended only to assert abstract 
rights that may be exercised by the people when driven to the last 
resort, to wit : to revolution. That is an abstract principle, intended 
to assert the right in the people of Kansas to change their form of 
government, under the same law, the same authority that our ancestors 
resisted British power, and overthrew the British authority upon this 
continent. It was under that principle that our fathers threw the tea 
into Boston harbor. It was under that principle that our fathers 
burnt up the stamps, and sent the stamp agents out of the country. 
It was under that principle that our fathers resorted to arms to main- 
ta,in the right to change their form of government from a monarchy 
to a republic — chauge by revolution, because they had arrived at the 
point where resistance was a less evil than submission. That the 
people have a right to apjjeal to the God of arms to overthrow the 
power that oppresses them, and change their form of government 
whenever their oppressions are intolerable, and resistance is a less evil 
than submission, is a great truth that no republican, no democrat, no 
citizen of a free country, should ever question. But, sir, that clause 
was never intended to furnish the lawful mode by which this consti- 
tution could be changed, for the reason that the same instrument 
points out a different mode than the one therein asserted ; and when 
a specific mode is prescribed, and time is to elapse before that mode 
can be resorted to, that excludes the idea that it can be done in any 
other mode, or at a prior time. 

But, sir, this article from the bill of rights proves entirely too 
much. The President says you may put into this bill a clause recog- 
nizing the right of the people of Kansas to change their constitution 
by the consent of the first legislature. What does the bill of rights 
say ? That it is the inalienable and indefeasible right of the people, 
at all times, to alter, abolish, or reform their form of government in 
such manner as they may think proper, not in such manner as the 
legislature shall prescribe, not at such time as the legislative authority 
or th9 existing government may provide, but in such manner as the 



14 

people tliiiik proper in town meeting, in convention, through the Icg- 
inlature, in popular assemblages, at the point of the bayonet, in any 
manner the people themselves may determine. That is the right and 
the nature of the right authorized by this bill of rights. It is the 
revolutionary remedy, not the lawful mode. There are two modes of 
changing the constitution of a State ; one lawful, the otlicr revolu- 
tionary. The lawful mode is the one pre&"cribed in the instrument. 
The revolutionary mode is one in violation of the instrument. The 
revolutionary mode may be peaceful, or may be forcible ; tliat depends 
on whether there is resistance. If apeo])le are unanimous in favor of 
a change, if nobody opposes it, the revolutionary means may be a 
peaceful remedy ; but if, in tlie progress oi' the revolution, while you 
are making the change, you meet with resistance, then it Viecomes 
civil war, treason, rebellion, if you fail, and a successful revolution if 
you succeed. 

1 say, tlien, the mode pointed out in the bill of rights is the revo- 
lutionary mode, and not tlie lawful means provided in the instrument ; 
but if the Committee on Territories be right in saying tliat this is 
a lawful mode, then the recommendation of the President, that Con- 
gress should recognize the right to do it by the first legislature, vio- 
lates this constitution. Why? The President recommends us to 
recognize their rights through the legislature, and in that mode alone. 
The bill of rights says the people shall do it in such manner as they 
please. If the construction given by the Committee on Territo- 
ries be right, you dare not vote for the President's proposition to 
recognize the right of the first legislature to do it, for you give a con- 
struction to the instrument in violation of its terms. 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator from Illinois allow me to inter- 
rupt him a moment? 

Mr. Douglas. With a great deal of pleasure. 

Mr. Haalmond. I understood the senator to say just now that Con- 
gress had no right to look into the constitution of a State and place 
a construction upon it. If that be true, I would inquire of the senator 
from Illinois, how is Congress to know whether a constitution is re- 
publican or not? If it be true, I would inquire of him, further, why is 
he here now discussing and placing a construction upon tlie constitu- 
tion of Kansas? 

Mr. DoU(;las. I will take great pleasure in answering the gentle- 
man from South Carolina. I have a riglit to look into this constitu- 
tion to see whether, in my opinion, it is republican. I have this right 
to look at it only for the purpose of regulating my vote. The juilg- 
ment on whicli I base my vote is one binding on nobody but myself. I 
am talking now, not on forming a construction by which members of 
Congress are to govern themselves, but I am speaking of your right to 
place a construction on this constitution binding upon the peoi)le and 
government of Kansas. Give me the power to construe the constitu- 
tion of Kansas authoritatively, and then I liave the power to change 
it^ to alter it, to annul it, to make it mean what I j)]easOj and not 
what they mean. 

Mr. Hammond. I should have thought tliat the senator would have 
denounced the attempt to construe the constitution, and left the mat- 



15 

tor there, after having asserted that no such power exists ; but when 
he goes on to construe it himself, he is inconsistent with his first prop- 
osition that there is no right to construe it. 

Mr, Douglas. No, sir, I deny the right of Congress to con- 
atrue it authoritatively for the people of Kansas. I am not denying 
the right of the senator from of South Carolina to put his own con- 
struction upon it. I am not denying the right of each senator here 
to make up his own mind in regard to it. It is the duty of each 
senator here to do that for himself ; but that is only to satisfy his own 
judgment and his own conscience in regulating his vote upon the 
question. The point I am arguing is, whether this Congress has 
any power_, by a rule of construction, to change the constitution 
of a State, and make its construction binding on the authori- 
ties and people of that State, I repeat, if this Congress can exercise 
that power, there is an end of State rights, an end of State sovereignty; 
this government becomes a consolidated government, an empire, a 
central power, with provinces and^dependencies, and ceases to be a con- 
federation of sovereign and independent States, I am arguing against 
the propriety of Congress acceding to the recommendation of the^ 
President to strike that fatal blow at the severeignty of the States of 
this Union, 

But, sir, my friend from Ohio, who cannot accede quite to this doc- 
trine of the President any more than the Committee on Territories 
can, proposes to remedy this matter in a different way. He has offered 
an amendment, which I ask the Clerk to read. 

The Clerk read the following amendment, intended to be proposed 
by Mr. Pugh, lo the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. 
Green to the bill (S. No. 161) "for the admission of the State of 
Kansas into the Union : At the end thereof add the following section : 

" Sec* — . And be it further enacted, That the admission of the States of Minnesota and 
Kunsas into the Union, by lliis act, sliall never be so construed as to deny, limit, or other- 
wise impair, the right of the people of the said States, with the assent of their legislatures, 
-severally, at all times, to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner 
as they may think proper, so that the same be still republican and ii^ accordance with the 
■Constitution of the United States." 

N Mr. Douglas, I am at a loss to know what object my friend from 
Ohio expects to accomplish by this proviso, that nothing in the act of 
admission shall be construed to deny, limit, or otherwise impair, the 
right of the people to change tlieir constitution. Who ever dreamed 
that there v/as anything in the act of admission which could be so 
construed? It is not the act of admission to which we are alluding ; 
it is the provision in tliis constitution which says it sliall not be 
clianged until after 1864. 

Nobody pretends that you can put anything in the act of admission 
which would limit this right. What I am denying is your right to 
put anything in the act of admission either to limit or extend or con- 
strue the constitution. Nobody pretends that this act of admission 
affects this point at all. The objection, if it be an objection, is in the 
constitution itself, not in the act of admission. 

Then what legal effect would the amendment of the senator from 
Ohio have, if it should be adopted ? I presume no one pretends that 
it would have anv legal effect. Is there a senator here who pretends 



16 

that the adoption of tlie amendment of the senator from Ohio would 
confer any power or authority on the people of Kansas to change their 
constitution which they would not have without it? lam informed 
the senator from Ohio said, in his speech in explanation of it, that it 
did not confer any right wliich the people would not otherwise have. 
Then wliy adopt it? I can conceive of but one motive, and that is to 
lead the people to infer that they have secured a right by that proviso 
which they really have not got — to lead them to suppose that they 
have gained an advantage which in reality they do not possess. Is 
that the object? Is it the object to obviate an objection, and yet in 
fact to leave the objection in full force? Why, I ask, is it proposed 
to put that amendment in the bill if it has no legitimate effect — if it 
does not give the people any right, any privilege, which they would 
not possess without it? Perhaps I may be asked, on the contrary, 
what is the objection to putting it in? It may be said it is only the 
expression of the individual opinion of the members of Congress. I 
will tell you my objection to putting this clause in the act of admis- 
sion. I object to inserting any clause in the act of admission that 
expresses any opinion, one way or the other, in resi)ect to the i)ro- 
priety of any provision in the constitution. If you may pronounce 
judgment on the propriety of one clause, altbough it has no legal 
effect to change it, you may on the propriety of another clause. Sup- 
pose, for instance^ the senator from New York should offer an amend- 
ment that nothing contained in this act of admission shall be con- 
strued to sanction or tolerate the right to hold property in man ; or 
that nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize or permit 
slaveholding in said State ; or should propose to insert an opinion that 
slaveholding was a crime ; wouhV southern men think there was no 
objection to it because it had no legal effect? Are you willing that 
Congress shall set the example of inserting, in acts of admission, 
clauses that pronounce judgment against the domestic institutions of 
a State ? Are you willing that a Congress composed of a majority of 
free-State men shall put clauses in an act of admission condemning 
slaveholding? Or, if we were a minority, would we be willing that 
you should put a clause in an act of admission condemning our free 
institutions ? 

Now, sir, I hold that Congress has no right to pronounce its opinion 
even upon the propriety of any local or domestic institution of any 
State of this Union. Each State is sovereign, with the unlimited and 
unrestricted power and right to manage its local and internal concerns 
to suit itself, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the 
United States. I warn gentlemen that when, in order to catch a little 
popular favor, they set the example of backing up a vote in favor of 
this enormous fraud by ])utting a clause in the bill having no legal 
effect, but expressing opinions ujjon the propriety of this or that clause 
of a State constitution, they are setting an example that may return 
upon them in a way that will not be pleasant. I protest against Con- 
gress interfering eitlier to annul or construe, or express opinions upon 
the proi)riety of this clause or tliat clause of the constitution. I repeat, 
if the constitution be the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and if 
its provisions are not in violation of the Constitution of the United 



17 

States, that people had a right to put tliem there ; and you have no 
right to touch them or to pronounce judgment upon them. 

Mr. President, I come back to the question : ought wo to receive 
Kansas into the Union with the Lecompton constitution ? Is there 
satisfactory evidence that it is the act and deed of that people ? that 
it embodies their will ? Is the evidence satisfactory that the people 
of that Territory have been left perfectly free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions in their own way? I think not. I do not 
acknowledge the propriety, or justice, or force of that special pleading 
which attempts, by technicalities, to fasten a constitution upon a peo- 
23le which, it is admitted, they would have voted down if they had had 
a chance to do so, and Avhich does not embody their will. Let me ask 
gentlem.en from the south, if the case had been reversed, would they 
have taken the same view of the subject ? Suppose it were ascertained, 
beyond doubt or cavil, that three-fourths of the people of Kansas were 
in favor of a slaveholding State, and a convention had been assembled 
by just such means and under just such circumstances as brought the 
Lecompton convention together ; and suppose that when they assem- 
bled it was ascertained that three-fourths of the convention were free- 
soilers, while three-fourths of the people were in favor of a slaveholding 
State ; suppose an election took place in the Territory during the sitting 
of the convention, which developed the fact that the convention did not 
represent the people ; suppose that convention of free-soilers had pro- 
ceeded to make a constitution and allowed the people to vote for it, 
but not against it, and thus forced a free-soil constitution upon a 
slaveholding people against their will — would you, gentlemen from 
the south, have submitted to the outrage? Would you have come up 
here and demanded that the free-soil constitution — adopted at an 
election where all the affirmative votes were received, and all the 
negative votes rejected, for the reason that it would have been voted 
down if the negative votes had been received — should be accepted ? 
Would you have said that it was fair, that it was honest, to force an 
abolition constitution on a slaveholding people against their Avill ? 
Would you not have come forward and have said to us that you denied 
that it was the embodiment of tlie public will, and demanded that it 
should be sent back to the people to be voted upon, so as to ascertain 
the fact ? Would you not have said to us that you were willing to 
live up to the principle of the Nebraska bill, to leave the people per- 
fectly free to form such institutions as they please ; and that if we 
would only send that constitution back and let the people have a fair 
vote upon it, you would abide the result ? Suppose we, being a 
northern majority, had said to you : ' ' No ; we have secured a sectional 
advantage and we intend to hold it ; and we will force this constitu- 
tion upon an unwilling people, merely because we have the power to 
do it ;" would you have said that was fair? 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator allow me to answer him ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Hammond, As the senator looked towards me in asking his 
question, I will undertake, though without authority, to answer for 
the slaveholding community. If^ having had tlie power to establish 
a slaveholding constitution, we had refrained from exercising it, and 



18 

those in favor of a free State constitution had established one to that 
effect, I say that the slavehoklers would have submitted to it, until 
tlirougli the forms of constitutional law tlicy could have altered it. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator assumes what I did not certainly intend, 
when he says that I looked at him. I was propounding the question, 
however, to any senator, and am as willing that the senator from 
South Carolina should reply as any other. Pie assumes as true, for 
the purposes of his answer, the very fact that is denied — that they had 
the power. 

Mr. Hammond. Asserted on all hands, sir. 

Mr. Douglas. What ? 

Mr. Hammond. Asserted that there was a free State majority when 
the convention was elected. 

Mr. Brown. The senator from Hlinois asserted it to-night. 

Mr. Douglas. Yes ; and I assert now that there was a free State 
majority ; and I assert, also, that one half the counties of the Terri- 
tory were disfranchised, and not allowed to vote at the election of 
"delegates. (Applause in the galleries.) 

Mr. Hammond. That has been answered over and over again 

The Vice President. The senator from South Carolina will pause 
until order is restored. 

Mr. Mason. I rise to a question of privilege. If there is again 
disorder in this chamber, I shall insist upon the galleries being cleared. 

Mr. BiiowN. I hope that order will be enforced. The Senate is not 
a theatre. 

Mr. Toombs. Tlie statement just made by the senator from Illinois 
is a great mistake, and I shall take issue with him when he sits down, 
I say it is not true in any sense, and I will answer it. 

Mr. Mason. Mr. President 

The Vice President. The senator from Virginia gives notice that 
if there be a repetition of the demonstrations in the galleries he will 
move to clear them. 

Mr. Mason. If there is again disorder in the galleries, let it arise 
from what source it may, I shall .ask the Chair to enforce the order of 
the Senate. 

The Vice President. Before the debate commenced, the Chair ex- 
pressed the hope that these demonstrations would not occur. He did 
not then think that he would have to repeat the expression of that 
hope. This floor is covered by persons not members of the Senate, 
admitted by the consent of the body unanimously, and certainly 
something is due to the courtesy of the Senate. The Chair does not 
believe these demonstrations will be repeated, and therefore takes no 
further notice of what has occurred. The senator from Illinois will 
proceed. 

Mr. Douglas. The interposition of the denial that about one half of 
the counties were disfranchised, I presume, can have but very little 
•weight on the argument. It has been proven over and over again. In 
my estimation the proof is conclusive as to the fifteen counties, and 
satisfactory, I think, as to nineteen, being half the counties of the 
Territory, that there was not such a census and registration as author- 
ized a vote ibr delegates. It has been attempted to be proved, how- 



19 ^ 

ever, that there was not a great many votes in those counties. I 
believe tlie president of tlie convention estimates that there were not 
more than fifteen hundred or two tliousand in those counties. Sup- 
pose that was all. There were only a little over two thousand votes 
polled at the election of delegates in the other nineteen counties which 
elected all the delegates. If the disfranchised counties contained 
fifteen hundred voters, is it not conclusive that, with the addition of 
five or six hundred persons in the other counties, they could have 
changed the result ? Having been disfranchised in one-half the coun- 
ties, the friends of those who were disfranchised may not have voted 
in the other counties, because they had no hope of overcoming the ma- 
jority in the other half. I did not intend to go into the argument on 
that point again ; and I should not have alluded to it now but for the 
fact that the Senator from South Carolina had to assume as true, what 
I understood not to be true, in order to predicate his answer upon it, 
that he, as a southern man, would vote to admit the State if the case 
had been reversed, and a free-State constitution was being forced upon 
an unwilling people, with the knowledge that it did not reflect the 
sentiments of that people* 

Mr. Hammond. Allow me i^ say that, if tlie slaveholders, under 
these circumstances, had never had a majority at all, they would^ 
nevertheless, have submitted until they could alter the constitution^ 
if they could possibly do it. 

Mr. Douglas. I can only say, then, that they are a very submissive 
people. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hammond. Not at all. 

Mr. Douglas. I have never seen the day when I would be willing 
to submit to the action of a minority forcing a constitution on an un- 
willing people against their will because it had got an advantage. It 
violates the fundamental principle of government ; it violates the 
foundations on which all free government rests ; it is a proposition in 
violation of the democratic creed ; in violation of the republican creed; 
in violation of the American creed ; in violation of the creed of every 
party which professes to be governed by the principles of free institu- 
tions and fair elections. 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator allow me to say one word more? 
If the slaveholders, under the circumstances that he stated, were a mi- 
nority, they would have submitted. If they were a majority, as I 
assume, they would have submitted until, under the forms of constitu- 
tional law, they could have properly asserted their power. 

Mr. Douglas. I understood the senator to say that ; I must say to 
him that I would rather not repeat questions on the same point over 
and over again. I am very feeble to-night, and shall probably not have 
strength enough to go through with my remarks. I only desire to say 
on that point, that I regard the i)rinciple involved here as vital and 
fundamental, as lying at the foundation of all free government, and 
the violation of it as a death blow to State rights and State sovereignty. 
But, sir, I pass on. If you admit Kansas with the Lecompton con- 
stitution, you also admit her with the State government which 
hag been brought into existence under it. Is the evidence satisfac- 
tory that that State, government has been fairly and honestly elected ? 



•20 

Is the evidence tsatisiactory that the elections were Ikirly and honestly 
held, and fairly and honestly returned? You have all seen the evi- 
dence showing the iraudulent voting ; the forged returns, from pre- 
cinct after precinct, changing tlie result not only upon the legislative 
ticket, but also upon the ticket for Governor and State officers. The 
false returns in regard to Delaware Crossing, changing thecomi)lexion 
of the Legislature, are admitted. The evidence is equally conclusive 
as to the Shawnee precinct, the Oxford precinct, the Kickapoo pre- 
cinct, and many others^ making a difference of some three thousand 
votes in the general aggregate, and changing the whole result of the 
election. Yet, sir, Ave are called upon to admit Kansas with the State 
government thus brought into existence not only by fraudulent voting, 
but forged returns, sustained by perjury. Tlie Senate well recollects 
the efforts that I made before the subject was referred to the committee, 
and since, to ascertain to whom certificates of election were awarded, 
that we might know whether they were given to the men honestly 
elected, or to the men whose elections depended upon forgery and 
perjury. Can any one tell me now to whom those certificates have 
been-issued, if they have been issued at all ? Can any man tell mc 
whether we are installing, by receiving this State government, officers 
whose sole title depends upon forgery, or those Avhose title depends 
upon popular votes P We have been calling for that information for 
about three months, but we have called in vain. One day the rumor 
would be that Mr. Calhoun would declare the free-State ticket elected, 
and next day that he would declare the pro-slavery ticket elected. So 
it ha"s alternated, like the chills and fever, day after day, until within 
the last three days, when the action of Congress became a little du- 
bious, when it was doubtful whether Northern men were willing to 
vote for a State government depending on f)rgery and perjury, and 
then we find that the president of the Lecompton convention addresses 
a letter to the editor of the Star, a newspaper in this city, telling what 
he thinks is the result of the election. He says it is true that he has 
received no answer to his letters of inquiry to Governor Denver ; he 
has no official information on the subject, but, from rumors and un- 
official information, he is now satisfied that the Delaware Crossing 
return was a fraud ; that it will be set aside ; and that, accordingly, 
the result will be that certificates will be issued to the free-State men. 
I do not mean to deny that J\Ir. Calhoun may think such will be the 
result ; but while he may think so, I would rather know how the fact 
is. His thoughts are not important, but the fact is vital in establish- 
ing the honesty or dishonesty of the State government which we are 
about to recognize. It so happens that Mr. Calhoun has no more 
power, no more authority over that (Question now, than the Senator 
from ^Missouri, or any other member of this body. The celebrated 
Lecompton schedule provides that — 

" In case of removal, absence, or disability of the president of this convention to dis- 
charge the duties herein imposed on liini, the president pro tempore of this convention sliall 
perform said duties ; and in case of absence, refusal, or disability of the president pro tempore, 
a conimiltco consisting of seven, or a majority of them, shall discharge the duties required 
of the president of this convention." 

As Mr. Calhoun is absent from the Territory, and, by reason of that 
absence, is deprived of all authority over the subject-matter, and as 



21 

the president p'o temporehaa succeeded to his powers, is it satisfactory 
for the deposed president to address a letter to the editor of the Star 
announcing his private opinion as to who has been elected ? I should 
like to know who the president ^ro te7n2)ore is and where he is ; and if 
he is in Kansas, whether he has arrived at the same conclusion which 
the ex-president Calhoun has announced. I should like to know 
whether that president pro tempore has already issued his certificate 
to the pro-slavery men in Kansas, while Mr. Calhoun expresses the 
opinion in the Star that the certificates will he issued to the free-State 
men? If that president j^i'o tempore has become a fugitive from justice, 
and escaped from the Territory, I should like then to know who are 
the committee of seven that were to take his place ; and whether they^ 
or a majority of them, have arrived at the same conclusion to which 
Mr. Calhoun has come? Inasmuch as this opinion is published to 
the world just before the vote is to be taken here, and is expected to 
catcli the votes of some green members of one body or the other, I 
should like to know whether certificates have been issued ? and, if so, 
by whom, and to whom? where the president pro tempore is? where 
the committee of seven may be found ? and then we might know who 
constitute the Legislature, and who constitute the State government, 
which we are to bring into being. We are not only to admit Kansas 
with a constitution, but with a State government ; with a governor, 
a legislature, a judiciary ; with executive, legislative, judicial, and 
ministerial officers. Inasmuch as we are told by the President, that 
the first legislature may take steps to call a convention to change the 
constitution, I should like to know of whom that legislature is com- 
posed ? Inasmuch as the governor would have the power to veto an 
act of the legislature calling a convention, I should like to know who 
is governor, so that I may judge whether he would veto such an act ? 
Cannot our good friends get the president ^ro tempore of the conven- 
tion to write a letter to the Star ? Can they not procure a letter from 
the committee of seven ? Can they not clear up this mystery, and 
relieve our suspicious minds of anything unfair or foul in the arrange- 
ment of this matter? Let us know how the fact is. 

Tiiis publication of itself is calculated to create more apprehension 
then there was before. As long as Mr. Calhoun took the ground that 
he would never declare the result until Lecompton was admitted, and 
that if it was not admitted, he would never make the decision, there 
seemed to be some reason in his course ; but when, after taking that 
ground lor months, it became understood that Lecompton was dead, 
or was lingering and languishing, and likely to die, and wlien a few 
more votes were necessary, and a pretext was necessary to be given, 
in order to secure them, we find this letter i)ublished by the deposed 
ex-president, giving his opinion when he had no power over the sub- 
ject ; and when it appears by the constitution itself that another man 
or another body of men has the decision in their hands, it is calcu- 
lated to arouse our suspicions as to what the result will be after Le- 
compton is admitted. 

Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this bill, before I was 
compelled to absent myself i'rom the Senate on account of sickness, 
and I presume the same has been the ease during my absence, much 



22 

\vas said on the slavery question in connection Avitli the admission 
of Kansas, Many gentlemen have labored to produce the impression 
that the whole oi»i)osition to the admission arises out of the fact that 
the Lecompton constitution makes Kansas a slave State. 1 am sure that 
no gentleman here will do me the injustice to assert or suppose that 
my opposition is predicated on that consideration, in view of the fact 
that my speech against the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton 
constitution was made on the 9th of December, two weeks before 
the vote was taken U])on the slavery clause in Kansas, and when the 
*:;eneral im])ression was that the pro-slavery clause would be excluded. 
I predicated my opposition then, as I do now, upon the ground that 
it was a violation of the fundamental principles of government, a 
violation of popular sovereignty, a violation of the Democratic plat- 
form, a violation of all ])arty platforms, and a fatal blow to the inde- 
pendence of the new States. I told you then that you liad no more 
right to force a free-State constitution uj)on a people against their will 
than you had to force a slave-State constitution. Will gentlemen say 
that, on the other side, slavery has no influence in producing that 
united, almost unanimous support which we find from gentlemen 
living in one section of the Union in favor of the Lecompton consti- 
tution? If slavery had nothing to do with it, would tliere have been 
so much hesitation about Mr. Calhoun's declaring tlie result of the 
election prior to the vote in Congress? 1 submit, tlien, whether we 
ought not to discard the slavery question altogether, and approach 
the real question before us fairly, calmly, dis})assionately, and decide 
■whether, but for the slavery clause, this Lecompton constitution could 
receive a single vote in either House of Congress. Were it not for 
the slavery clause, would there be any objection to sending it back to 
the people for a vote ? Were it not for tlio slavery clause, would there 
be any objection to letting Kansas wait until she had ninety thousand 
people, instead of coming into the Union with not over forty-five or 
fifty thousand ? Were it not for the slavery question, would Kansas 
have occupied any considerable portion of our thoughts ? would it 
have divided and distracted political parties so as to create bitter and 
acrimonious feelings? I say now to our southern friends, tliat 1 will 
act on this question on the riglit of the people to decide for them- 
selves, irrespective of the fact whether they decide ibr or against 
slavery, provided it be submitted to a fair vote at a fair election, and 
with honest returns. 

In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. 
I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice tlie articles wliich 
t^iey publish in regard to myself; but the course of tlie Washington 
Union has been so extraordinary, for the last two or three months, 
that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read 
me out of the Democratic party every other day, at least, for two or 
three months, and keeps reading me out, (laughter :) and, as if it had 
not succeeded, still continues to lead me out^ using such terms as 
'' traitor," " renegade," " deserter,' and other kind and polite epi- 
thets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my de- 
mocracy against the Washington Union, or any other nev.spapers. I 
■willing am to allow mv history and action for the last twentv vears to 



23 

speak for themselves as to my political principles, and ray fidelity to 
political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. 
When its editor was nominated for Public Printer I declined to vote 
for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for 
doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, 
these vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily 
on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I 
allude. 

Mr. Stuart read the following editorial article from the Washing- 
ton Union of November 17, 1857 : 

Free Soilism. — The primary object of all government, in its original institution, is the pro- 
tection of person and property. It is for this alone that men surrender a portion of their 
natural rights. 

" In order that this object may be fully accomplished, it is necessary that this protection 
should be equally extended to all classes of free citizens without excoption. This, at 
least, is a fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States, which is the 
original compact on which all our institutions are based. 

"Slaves were recognized as proporty in the British colonies of North America by th« 
government of Great Britain, by the colonial laws and by the Constitution of the United 
States Under these sanctions veKted rights have accrued to the amount of some sixteen 
hundred million dollars. It is, therefore, the duty of Congress and the State legislature 
to protect that property. 

" The Constitution declares that ' the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the ^ 
privileges and immunities ot citizens in the several States.' Every citizen of one State 
coming into another State has, therefore, a right to the protection of his person, and that 
property which is recognized as such by the Constitution of the United States, any law of 
a State to the contrary notwithstanding". So far from any State having a right to deprive 
him of this property, it is its bounden duty to protect him in its possession. 

" If tliese views are correct — and we believe it would be difficult to invalidate them — it 
follows that all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit a citizen of one 
Stiite fnmi settling in another, and bringing his slave property with him, and most espe- 
cially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of a government 
which, as before stated, is the protection of per.sun and property, and of the Constitution 
of the United States, which recognizes property in slaves, and declares that ' the citizens 
of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
States,' among the most essential of which is the protection of person and property, 

"What is recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States, by a pro- 
vision which applies equally to all the States, has an inalienable right to be protected in 
all the States." ******* s- * 

"The protection of property being, next to that of person, the most important object 
of all good government, and property in slaves being recognized by the Constitution of 
the United States, as well as originally by all the old thirteen States, we have never 
doubted that the emancipation of slaves in those States where it previously existed, by an 
arbitrary act of the legislature, was a gross violation of the rights of property." * --" 

" The emancipation of the daves of the Northern States was then, as previously stated, a ffi'oss oxd- 
rage on the rights of property, inasmiich as it was not a voluntary relinciuishment on the part 
of the owners. It was an act of coercive legislation." * # » * 

" This mea.sure of emancipation was the parent or the offspring of a doctrine which may 
be so extended as to place the property of every man in the community at the mercy of 
rabid fiinaticism or political expediency. It is only to substitute scruples of conscience 
in place of established constitutional principle, and all laws and all constitutions become 
a dead letter. The rights of persons and property become subservient, not to laws and 
constitutions, but to f;inatical dogmas, and thus the end and object of all good govern- 
ment is completely frustrated. There is no longer any rule of law nor any constitutional 
guide ; and the people are left to the discretion, or rather the madness, of a school of 
instructors who can neither comprehend their own dogmas nor make them comprehen.sible 
toothers." * * * * * ■» * so 

" Where is all this to end? and what security have the free citizens of the United States 
that their dearest rights may not, one after another, be offered U]) at the shrine of the 
demon of fanaticism, the most dangerous of all the enemies of freedom i If the Consti- 
tution is no longer to be our guide and protector, where shall we fmd barritjrs to defend 
us against a sys.em of legislation restrained by no laws and no constitutions, whii.h 
creates crimes at pleasure, punishes them at will, and sacrifices the rights of persons and 



24 

property to a dogma, or a scruple of conscience ? All tliis is Imt the old laws of Puritan- 
ism now fomenting and Pouring in the exhausted beer-barrel of Massachupetts. The 
descendants of this race of ecclesiastical tyrants, or ratlim- t'cclcciastical slaves, have 
spread over tlie western part of the State of New York, and througliovit all the new States, 
where they have, to some extent, disseminated their manners, habits, and principles, most 
especially their blind subserviency to old idols, and their abject subjection to their priests. 
'J'here is no doubt that they aspire to give tone and character to the whole confederacy, 
and believe that their dream will be realized ? We are pretty well convinced, however, 
that the people of Ihe United States will never become a nation of fanatical Puritans." 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, you here find several distinct proposi- 
tions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially and ap- 
parently authoritatively, and every man v.dio qnestions any of them is 
denounced as an abolitionist, a free-soiler, a fanatic. The proposi- 
tions are, first, tliat the primary object of all government at its original 
institution is the protection of person and projierty ; second, that the 
Constitution of the United States declares that tlie citizens of each 
State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, 
whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State 
from settling in another with their slave property, and especially de- 
claring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of 
the government and Constitution of tlie United States ; and fourth, 
that the emancipation of the slaves of the northern States was a gross 
outrage on the riglits of projjerty, inasmuch as it was involuntarily 
done on the part of the owner. 

Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th 
of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the 
adliesion of the Union to the Lecompton constitution. It was in tliese 
words: 

"Kansas ano hek Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. 
The dread point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and 
gone." 

and a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look 
into the Lecom])ton constitution, you find the same doctrine incorpo- 
rated in it which was }>ut forth editorially in the Union. What is it? 

" Articlk 7. Sectio7i I. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional 
sanction; nnd the ripht of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and 
as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever." 

Then in the schedule is a provision that the constitution may be 
amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote, 
" But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property In the ownership of slaves.' 

It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton constitution, that 
they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Wash- 
ington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this constitu- 
tion, and every man is branded as a free-soiler and abolitionist who 
does not subscribe to them. The proposition is advanced that the 
emancipation acts of New York, of New England, of Pennsylvania, 
and of New Jersey, were unconstitutional, were outrages upon the 
right of jjroperty, were violations of the Constitution of. the United 
States. The proposition is advanced that a southern man has a right 
to move from South Carolina, with his negroes, into Illinois, to settle 
there and hold them there as slaves, anything in the constitution and 
laws of Illinois to the contrary, notwithstanding. The proposition is. 



25 

that a citizen of Virginia has rights in a free State, which a citizen of 
a free State cannot himself have. We prohibit ourselves from hold- 
ing slaves within our own limits ; and yet, according to this doctrine, 
a citizen of Kentucky can move into our State, bring in one hundred 
slaves with him, and hold them as such in defiance of the constitution 
and laws of our own State. If that proposition is true, the creed ( < 
the democratic party is ialse. The principle of the Kansas-Nebrask;!, 
bill is, that "pach State and each Territory shall be left perfectly free 
to form and regulate its domestic institutions in its own way^ subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States." I claim that Illinois 
has the sovereign right to prohibit slavery, a right as undeniable as 
that the sovereignty of Virginia may authorize its existence. We 
have the same right to prohibit it that you have to recognize and 
protect it. Each State is sovereign within its own sphere of powers, 
sovereign in respect to its own domestic and local institutions and 
internal concerns So long as you regulate your local institutions to 
suit yourselves, we are content ; but when you claim the right to 
override our laws and our constitution, and deny our right to form 
our institutions to suit ourselves, I protest against it. The same 
doctrine is asserted in this Lecompton constitution. There, it is 
stated that the right of property in slaves is " before and higher than 
anv constitutional sanction." 

Mr. President, I recognize the right of the slaveholding States to 
regulate their local institutions, to claim the services of their slaves 
under their own State laws, and I am prepared to perform each and 
every one of my obligations under the Constitution of the United 
States in respect to them ; but I do not admit, and I do not think 
they are safe in asserting, that their right of property in slaves is 
higher than and above constitutional sanction, is independent of 
constitutional obligations. When you rely upon the Constitution and 
upon your own laws, you are safe. When you go beyond and above 
constitutional obligations^ I know not where your safety is. If this 
doctrine be true, that slavery is higher than the Constitution, and 
above the Constitution, it necessarily follows that a State cannot 
abolish it, cannot prohibit it, and the doctrine of the Washington 
Union, that the emancipation laws were outrages on the rights of 
property, and violations of the Constitution, becomes the law. 

When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November^ 
followed by the glorification of the Lecompton constitution on the 
18th of November, and this clause in the constitution asserting the 
doctrine that no State lias a right to prohibit slavery within its 
limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the 
sovereignty of the States of this Union, a death blow to State rights, 
subversive of the democratic platform and of the principles upon 
which the democratic party have ever stood, and upon which I trust 
they ever will stand. Because of these extraordinary doctrines,, I 
declined to vote for tlie editor of the Washington Union for public 
printer ; and for tliat refusal, as I suppose, I have been read out of 
the party by the editor of the Union at least every other day from 
that time to this. Sir, I submit the question : Who has deserted the 
democratic party and the democratic platform — he who stands by the 



26 

sovereign rij^lit of the State to abolish and prohibit slavery as 
it pleases, or he who attempts to strike down the sovereignty of 
the States, and combine all power in one central government, and 
establisli an empire instead of a confederacy? 

The princi])h's ui)on which the presidential campaign of 185fi was 
fonght are well known to the country. At least, in Illinois, I think 
I am authorized to state what they were with clearness and precision, 
so far as the slavery question is concerned. The democracy of Illinois 
are prepared to stand on the jdatform upon which the battle of 1856 
was fouglit. It was — 

First. Tlie migration or importation of negroes into the country 
having been jirohibited since 1808, never again to be renewed, each 
State will take care of its own colored population. 

Second. That while negroes are not citizens of the United States, 
and hence not entitled to political equality with whites, they should 
enjoy all tlie rights, privileges, and immunities whicli they are capa- 
ble of exercising, consistent with the safety and welfare of the com- 
munity where they live. 

Third. That eacli State and Territory must judge and determine for 
itself of the nature and extent of its rights and privileges. 

Fourth. That while each free State should and will maintain and 
protect all the rights of the slaveholding States, they will, each for 
itself, maintain and defend its sovereign right within its own limits, 
to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. 

Fifth. That in the language of Mr. Buchanan's letter of acceptance 
of the presidential nomination, tlie Nebraska-Kansas act does no more 
than give the form of law to this elementar}^ principle of self-govern- 
ment, when it declares " that the people of a Territory, like those of 
a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not 
exist within their limits." 

These were the general propositions on which we maintained the 
canvass on the slavery question — the right of each State to decide for 
itself; that a negro should have such rights as he was capable of en- 
joying, and could enjoy, consistently with the safety and welfare of 
society ; and that each State should decide for itself the nature and 
extent and description of those rights and privileges. Hence, if you 
choose in North Carolina to have slaves, it is your business, and not 
ours. Jf we choose in Illinois to prohibit slavery, it is our right, and 
you must not interfere with it. If New York chooses to give privi- 
leges to the negro which we withhold, it is her right to extend them, 
but she must not attem})t to force us to do the same thing. Let each 
State take care of its own affairs, mind its own business, and let its 
neighbors alone, then there will be peace in the country. Whenever 
you attempt to enforce uniformity, and, judging that a peculiar insti- 
tution is good for you, and therefore good for everybody else, try to 
force it on everybody, you will find that there will be resistance to the 
demand. Our government was not formed on the idea that there was 
to be unlformit V of local laws or local institutions. It was founded 



27 

upon the supposition that there must be diversity and variety in the 
institutions and laws. Our fatliers foresaw that the local insti- 
tutions wliicli would suit the .<;-ranite hills of New Hamshire 
would he ill adapted to the rice plantations of South Carolina. 
They loresaw that the institutions which would he well adapted to the 
mountains and valleys of Pennsylvania would not suit the plantation 
interests of Vir<i;inia. They foresaw that the great diversity of cli- 
mate, of production, of interests, would require a corresponding diver- 
sity of local laws and local institutions. For this reason they })rovi- 
ded for thirteen separate States, each with a separate legislature, and 
each State sovereign within in own sphere, with the riglit to make all 
its local laws and local institutions to suit itself, on the supposition 
that they would he as different and as diversified as the number of 
States themselves. Then the general government was made, with a 
Congress having limited and specified powers, extending only to those 
subjects which were national and not local, which Avere federal and 
not State. 

These were tlie principles on which our institutions were established. 
These are the principles on which the democratic party has ever fought 
its battles. This attempt now to establish the doctrine that a free State 
has no power to prohibit slavery, that our emancipation acts were uncon- 
stitutional and void, that they were outrages on the rights of property, 
that slavery is national and not local, that it goes everywhere under 
the Constitution of the United States, and yet is higher than the Con- 
stitution, above the Constitution, beyond the reach of sovereign 
power, existing by virtue of that higher law proclaimed by the Sena- 
tor from New York, .will not be tolerated. When the doctrine of a 
higher law, a law above the Constitution, a law over-riding the Con- 
stitution, and imposing obligations upon public men in defiance of the 
Constitution, was first proclaimed in the Senate, it was deemed moral 
treason in this body ; but now I am read out of the party three times 
a week b}^ the Washington Union for disputing this higher law, which 
is embodied in the Lecompton constitution, that slavery, the right t<:> 
slavery property, does not depend upon human law nor constitutional 
sanction, but is above and beyond and before all constitutional sanc- 
tions and obligations! I ieel bound, as a Senator from a sovereign 
State, to repudiate and rebuke this doctrine. I am bound as a Demo- 
crat, bound as an American citizen, bound as a Senator claiming to 
represent a sovereign State, to enter my protest, and the protest of my 
constituency, against such a doctrine. Whenever such a doctrine 
shall be ingrafted on the policy of this country, you will have revolu- 
tionized the government, annihilated the sovereignty of the States, 
established a consolidated despotism with uniformity of local institu- 
tions, and that uniformity being slavery, existing by Divine right, 
and a higher law beyond the reach of the Constitution and of human 
authority. 

Mr. President, if my protest against this interpolation into the 
policy of this country, or the creed of the Democratic party is to 
bring me under the ban, I am ready to meet the issue. I am told that 
this Lecompton constitution is a party test, a party measure ; that no 
man is a Democrat wlio doe.s not sanction it, who does not vote to 



28 

bring Kansas into the Union with the government established under 
that constitution. 8ir, who made it a party test ? Who made it a 
]iarty measure? Certainly tlie party has not assembled in convention 
to ordain any such thing to Ite a i»arty measure. I know of but one 
State convention that has endorsed it. It has not been declared to b« 
a party measure by State conventions or by a national convention, or 
by a senatorial caucus, or by a caucus of the Democratic members of 
the House of Representatives. How, then, came it to be a party meas- 
sure? The Democratic party laid down its creed at its last national 
convention. That creed is unalterable for four years, according to the 
rules and i)ractices of the party. Who has interpolated this Lecomp- 
ton constitution into the party platform ? 

Oh ! but we are told it is an Administration measure. Because it is 
an Administration measure, does it therefore follow that it is a party 
measure? Is it the right of an Administration to declare what are 
party measures and what are not? That has been attempted heretofore, 
and itdias i'ailed. When John Tyler prescribed a creed to the Whig 
party, his right to do so Avas not respected. When a certain doc- 
trine in regard to the neutrality laws was proclaimed to be a party 
measure, my friends around me here considered it a '' grave error," 
and it was not respected. When the army bill was proclaimed an Ad- 
ministration measure, the authority to make it so was ])ut at defiance, 
and the Sennte rejected it by a vote of four to one, and the House of 
Representatives voted it down by an overwhelming majority. Is the 
Pacific railroad bill a party measure? I should like to see whether 
the guillotine is to be applied to every recreant democrat who does not 
come up to that test. Is the bankrupt law a party measure ? We shall 
see, when the vote is taken, how many renegades there will be then. 
Was the loan bill an administration measure, or a party measure? Is 
the guillotine to be applied to every one who does not yield implicit 
obedience to the behests of an administration in power? There is 
infinitely more plausibility in declaring each of the measures to which 
I have just alluded to be an administration measure, than in declaring 
the Lecompton constitution to be such. By what right does the 
administration take cognizance of the Lecompton constitution? 

The Constitution of the United States says that "new States may be 
admitted into the Union by the Congress ;" not by the President, not 
by the cabinet, not by the administration. Tlie Lecompton constitu- 
tion itself says, "this constitution stiall be submitted to the Congress 
of the United States at its next session ;" not to the President, not to the 
cabinet, not to the administration. The convention in Kansas did not 
send it to the administration, did not authorize it to be sent to the Presi- 
dent, but directed it to be sent to Congress ; and the President of the 
United States only got hold of it through the commission of the surveyor 
general, who was also president of the Lecompton convention. The 
constitution as made was ordered to be sent directly to Congress ; 
Congress having power to admit States, and the President having 
nothing to do with it. The moment you pass a law admitting a State 
it executes itself. It is not a law to be executed by the President or 
by the administration. It is the last measure on earth that could be 



'29 

rightfully made an administration measure. It is not usual for the 
constitutioa of a new State to come to Congress through the hand of 
the President. True, the Minnesota constitution was sent to the 
President because the convention of Minnesota directed it to be so sent; 
and the President submitted it to us without any recommendation. 
Because senators and representatives do not yield their judgments and 
their consciences^ and bow in abject obedience to the requirements of 
an Administration in regard to a measure on which the administration 
are not required to act at all, a system of proscription, of persecution 
is to be adopted against every man who maintaius his self-respect, his 
own judgment and his own conscience. 

I do not recognize the right of the President or his cabinet^ no mat- 
ter what my respect may be for them, to tell me my duty in the senate 
chamber. The President has his duties to perform under the Con- 
stitution ; and he is responsible to his constituency. A senator has 
his duties to perform here under the Constitution and according to 
his oath ; and he is responsible to the sovereign State which he 
represents as his constituency. A member of the House of Representa- 
tives has his duties under the Constitution and his oath ; and he is 
responsible to the people that elected him. The President has no 
more right to prescribe tests to senators than senators have to the 
President ; the President lias no more right to prescribe tests to the 
representatives than the representatives have to the President. Sup- 
pose we here should attempt to prescribe a test of faith to the President 
of the United States, would he not rebuke our impertinence and im- 
pudence as subversive of the fundamental principle of the Constitu- 
tion? Would he not tell us that the Constitution and his oath and 
his conscience were his guide; that we^must perform our duties, and 
he would perform his, and let each be responsible to his own con- 
stituency ? 

Sir, whenever the time comes that the President of the United States 
can change the allegiance of the senators from the States to himself, what 
becomes of the sovereignty of the States? When the time comes that a 
senator is to account to the executive and not to his State, whom does 
he represent ? If the will of my State is one way and the will of the 
President is the other, am I to be told that I must obey the executive 
and betray my State, or else be branded as a traitor to the party, and 
hunted down by all the newspapers that share the patronage of the 
government ? and every man who holds a petty office in any part of 
my State to have the question put to him, "Are you Douglas' 
enemy?" if not, " your head comes off." Why? " Because he is 
a recreant senator ; because he chooses to follow his judgment and his 
conscience, and represent his State instead of obeying my executive 
behest." I should like to know what is the use of Congresses ; what 
is ttie use ot Senates and Houses of Representatives, when their highest 
duty is to obey tlie executive in disregard of the wishes, rights, and 
honor of their constituents? What despotism on earth would be equal 
to this, if you establish tlie doctrine that the executive has a right to 
command the votes, the consciences, the judgment of the senators and 
of the representatives, instead of their constituents? In old England, 



30 

"wliose oppresisionfi we tboiiglit intolerable, an aJniiuistratioa is hurleti 
from power in an hour when voted down by the representatives of the 
people upon a government measure. If the rule of old England ap- 
plied here, this cabinet would have gone out of office when the army 
bill was voted down, the other day, in the House of Rei)resentative«. 
There, in that monarchical country, where they have a queen by 
<livine right, and lords by the grace of God, and where republicanism 
is supposed to have but a slight foothold, the representatives of the 
people can check the throne, restrain the government, change the 
ministry, and give a new direction to the policy of the government, 
without being accountable to the king or the queen. There the re- 
presentatives of the i)eople are responsible to their constituents. 
Across the channel, under Louis Napoleon, it may be otherwise ; yet 
I doubt whether it would be so boldly j)roclaimed there that a man is 
a traitor for daring to vote according to his sense of duty, according to 
the will of his State, according to the interests of his constituents. 

Suppose the executive should tell the senator from California | Mr. 
Gwin] to vote against his Pacific railroad bill ; would he obey '^ If 
not, he will be deemed a rebel. Su])pose the executive should tell 
the senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] to vote for the Pacific railroad 
bill, or the senator from Georgia [Mr, Toombs] to vote for the army 
bill, or the senator from Mississippi [Mr Brown] to sustain him on 
the neutrality laws : we should have more rebels and more traitors. 
But it is said a dispensation is granted, from the fountain of all power, 
for rebellion on all subjects but one. The President says, in eftect, 
" Do as you please on all questions but one ;" that one is Lecomptou. 
On what principle is it that we must not judge for ourselves on this 
measure, and may on everytliing else ? I suppose it is on the old 
adage that a man needs no friends when he knows he is right, 
and he only wants his friends to stand by him when he is wrong. 
The President says that he regrets this constitution was uot sul)- 
mitted to the people, although he knows that if it had been sub- 
mitted it would have been rejected. Hence the President regrets 
that it was not rejected. Would he regret that it was not submitted 
and rejected if he did not think it was wrong? And yet he demands 
our assistance in forcing it on an unwilling people, and threatens 
vengeance on all who refuse obedience. He recommends the army 
bill ; he thinks it necessary to carry on the Mormon war, it is neces- 
sary to carry out a measure of the administration, and hence it is an 
administration measure ; but he does not quarrel with anybody for 
voting against it. He thinks every one of the other recommendations 
to wliich I liave alluded is right, and, therefore, there is no harm in 
going against tliem. The only liarm is in going against that which 
the President acknowledges to be wrong ; and yet the system of pro- 
scription, to subdue men to abject obedience to executive will, is to l)e 
pursued. 

Is it seriousl}' intended to brand every democrat in tlie United Stat^es 
as a traitor who is o})posed to the Lecompton constitution? If so, do 
your friends in Pennsylvania desire any traitors to vote with them next 
fall? We are traitors if we vote against Lecomptou, our constitueut** 



31 

are traitors if they do not think Lecompton is right, and yet you expect 
those whom you call traitors to vote with and sustain you. Are you to 
read out of the party every man who thinks it wrong to force a consti- 
tution on a people against their will ? If so, what will be the size of 
the administration party in New York? what will it be in Pennsyl- 
vania? how many will it number in Ohio, or in Indiana, or in Illinois, 
or in any other Northern State? Surely you do not expect the support 
of tliose whom you brand as renegades ! Would it not be well to allow 
all freemen freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of ac- 
tion? Would it not be well to allow each senator and representative 
to vote according to his judgment, and perform his duty according to 
his own sense of his obligation to himself, and to his State, and to his- 
God? 

For my own part, Mr. President, come what may, I intend to vote, 
speak, and act, according to my own sense of duty, so long as I hold a 
seat in this Chamber. I have no defence of my democracy. I have no 
professions to make of my fidelity. I have no vindication to make of 
my course. Let it speak for itself. The insinuation that I am acting 
with the republicans, or Americans, has no terror, and will not drive 
me from my duty or propriety. It is an argument for which I have 
no respect. When I saw the senator from Virginia acting with the 
republicans on the neutrality laws, in support of the President, I did 
not feel it to be my duty to taunt him with voting with those to whom 
he happened to be opposed in general politics. When I saw the senator 
from Georgia acting with the republicans upon the array bill, it did 
not impair my confidence in his fidelity to principle. When I see sen- 
ators here every day acting with tlie republicans on various questions, 
it only shows me that they have independence and self-respect enough 
to go according to their own convictions of duty, without being influ- 
enced by the course of others. 

1 have no professions to make upon any of these points. I intend to 
perform my duty in accordance with my own convictions. Neither the 
frowns of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, 
or drive me from my principles. I stand firmly, immovably upon those 
great principles of self-government and State sovereignty upon which 
the campaign was fought and the election won. I stand by the time- 
honored principles of the democratic party, illustrated by Jefferson and 
Jackson, those principles of State rights, of State sovereignty, of strict 
construction, on which the great democratic party has ever stood. I 
will stand by the Constitution of the United States, with all its com- 
promises, and perform all my obligations under it. I will stand by 
the American Union as it exists under the Constitution. If, standing 
firmly by my principles, I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate 
that has no terrors for me. I prefer private life, preserving my own 
8elf-res])ect and manhood, to abject and servile submission to executive 
"will. If the alternative be private life or servile obedience to execu- 
tive will, I am prepared to retire. Official jjosition has no charms for 
me when deprived of that freedom of thought and action which be- 
comes a gentleman and a senator. 

Mr. President, J owe an apology to the Senate for tlie desultory 



32 

manner in which I have discussed this question. My health has been 
80 feeble for some time past that I have not been able to arranfre my 
thoughts, or tlie order in whicli they should be presented. If, in the 
heat of debate, I have expressed a sentiment wliich would seem to be 
unkind or disrespectful to any senator, I shall regret it. While I in- 
tend to maintain, firmly and fearlessly, my own views, far be it from 
me to impugn the motives or question the propriety of the action of 
any other senator. I take it for granted that each senator will obey 
the dictates of his own conscience, and will be accountable to his con- 
stituents for the course which he may think proper to pursue. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



> I 11 





